On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 15:29:44 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2015 at 14:13:45 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
>> Yet another shallow language comparison that needs to be
>> corrected:
>>>>https://www.quora.com/Which-language-has-the-brightest-future-in-replacement-of-C-between-D-Go-and-Rust-And-Why/answer/Matej-%C4%BDach?srid=itC4&share=1>> Besides the author's obvious bias, the only thing in there that
> is factually wrong is his statement that Rust provides the same
> modeling power as C++ (lack of OOP). But other than that,
> nothing really jumps out at me as being plain incorrect.
There is plenty wrong with it. For instance, he mention that C++
and D are not attractive coming from C because of the complexity,
but somehow this doesn't apply to Rust. The claim is so ludicrous
I have hard time to believe that one can make it seriously.
Rust is way more complex than C. It's not even close.